Check whether a cited Supreme Court authority is still good law — overruled, distinguished, or affected by a larger bench under the Dawoodi Bohra bench-strength hierarchy. Run this before including any authority in a draft or filing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes | INSC neutral citation or any resolvable reference. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful legal context by naming treatment categories and the Dawoodi Bohra bench-strength hierarchy, but it does not disclose permissions, read-only guarantees, data freshness, return format, or how unresolvable citations are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage directive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough context to understand what is checked and when to call it. It could be more complete by describing the return shape or how treatment findings are reported, but the essential invocation guidance is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter has 100% schema coverage, with the schema explaining that it accepts an 'INSC neutral citation or any resolvable reference.' The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a cited Supreme Court authority is still good law.' It enumerates the treatment outcomes (overruled, distinguished, affected by a larger bench) and is clearly distinct from sibling citation-formatting, resolution, and search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit usage context: 'Run this before including any authority in a draft or filing.' This tells the agent exactly when the tool is relevant. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
